Creationism Vs Evolutionism: The Great Religious Debate

I am wondering if it's more wrong to worship the wrong deity or worshipping none at all.

Has there been any date planned yet?

Well..it depends what deity. Satanists worship satan so that would be worse.

Im starting to believe this end of time thing is a joke to you. But w/e and of course there isnt a date planned. Whenever someone plans to throw the most powerful nuclear bomb ever invented, that will probably be the end of time.

Interesting. Muslims are better off in this regard? Hinduists?
Buddhists? Please clarify.

No date planned, allright. I've been hearing a lot about that day in December 4 years from now, so was curious too see if that was the same.

Well, Buddhists are basically atheists. However I cant say which is worse, that is up to God to decide. I believe however that; take for example an atheist living a good life, doing nothing but good. That should save him.

People say 2012 is the apocalypse. I disagree, I believe theres gonna be a major change in humanity that day. Maybe something that will kill us all, maybe something that will allow us to live in Mars. Nobody knows.

Good, then I wont have to worry too much if mr Better than us all decides to judge me.

That date is close to my birthday, I hope its a nice surprise.

Modplan man, Richard Dawkins has replied to the 11 second pause issue ages ago:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=14255

Long post sorry.

@ GR: Didn\'t read your post before.

1. It is impossible to believe two inconsistent things simultaeneously.
2. Religions and science often provide inconsistent answers to the same questions.
3. Throughout history vast swathes of humanity have believed in the religious answers.
4. People not believing in science, treating science as witchcraft, refusing to accept the findings of science, and indeed not getting involved with scientific research themselves is a block on scientific progress.
5. Religion has resulted in everything mentionned in point four.
Therefore, religion is a block on scientific progress.

To answer the first point I think it is entirely possible to hold two conflicting opinions. I have many. Inner turmoil?

2. You shouldn\'t treat religion and science so separately. It\'s not like throughout history there has been a secret underground science society. There was one view and if you differed from that view you were not a scientist there was no such thing. There was one understanding of the world (or many if you count different religions) built mostly by religious scholars/scientists with no scientific contradiction. There can be no inconsistent answers to questions as yet unasked nor can there be inconsistent answers on their own with no answers to contradict.

3. which were the best answers because they were backed up by the best science available to them and the church.

4. no science, just religion. But yes there is galileo (apparently political crimes though) and others.

5. religion has also resulted everything in my following argument.

Are you honestly saying that if people as a whole had abandonned all superstition and embraced scientific research at the earliest possible points, science would have progressed no further than it has now?

Are you honestly saying that the dark ages did not hold back human progress?

Absolutist no? I can say a similar thing.

Rather than it being completely one way or the other and speaking in relative terms, I believe that religion has done as much if not more for science than against it.

Really, this is such a basic thing- yes, maybe religion was key to our early development, fine. Why does that preclude religion from being a block on scientific development?

I notice you avoid the term science and use the term \"early development\" I hope I\'m not patronising you to say that a whole lot of stuff happened before the enlightenment. For example (i think) socrates developed the scientific method during ancient greece and it hasn\'t changed much (That last sentence sums up my argument - 300BC scientific method invented in it\'s modern form and followed religiously) and the abacus goes even further back. People had star charts before they had paper and I\'m talking numbers and equations.

I mean (again at risk of patronising you) do you know what I mean by \"logarithms in the head\". I\'m talking maths that people just can\'t really do these days, even on paper. This is monks (who learned maths and english for like 14 hours a day) in like 1100 (even before probably, certainly in italy). When archimedes shouted eureka in the bath he was probably using a government grant.

Royal physicians? They were trained in anatomy (only one way to do that) we only hear about the crazy stuff one of them thought, once, but they weren\'t just crazy or they wouldn\'t be there.

I feel that because of all the ridiculous stroies we hear (horrible histories, crap tv) people just think the ancients were a big joke. Sure you can\'t heal someone by drilling a hole in their head but you can fix a broken bone or sow up a wound with some training.

When greek philosophers went about science they used serious scientific method. Examples I immediately think of are those flame ships that won a battle against unbeatable odds and that invention with the drill in a tube that was a really efficient new contraption for mining.

Religion and politics certainly understood the importance of science throughout history and don\'t underestimate the amount of scientific discovery that happened.

No I don\'t think the dark ages held back human progression I think we came on leaps and bounds (not as much as other periods but during the dark ages monks were getting educations that would make most modern people blush).

Religion created science, payed for it and integrated it into the canon. Religion was science. You had a question about butterflies? The clergy checked the files to find all the information about butterflies. Whether it was written by pythagoras or henry viii. They didn\'t just make it up.

They didn\'t just make up religion. They believed it, it was their science. When they talk about the tree/pyramid of life and all the animals positions they were trying to find a way to make sense of it or even just a way of categorising them.

Just because taxonomy of animals has changed doesn\'t mean they made it up. Religion was science.

Help to science/hindrance to science? The question is a relative one and can\'t be resolved. I\'m sure you see, however, I am not arguing that if the world wasn\'t superstitious we would have less progress in science.

(it wasn\'t until we knew it was superstition that it was actually superstition)

@ knighty: Do you not find the fact that, as you say, the probablities of life appearing in such a vast universe are a certainty, a little bit suspicious.

Probably not, you don\'t appear to find the idea very interesting which is probably required to think along those kind of conspiratorial lines

Oh and evil/sickness exiting the world probs/clearly refers to religious morality curing social problems.

Schizophrenics don\'t have alternate personalities, they\'re just psychotic.

(EDIT: I think I\'ve quoted the wrong person but I\'m not about to change it.)

Public information announcement: schizophrenics do not have multiple personalities. That is multiple personality disorder. As rightly pointed out earlier in the thread.

Close to my heart that\'s all.

Something bad will happen 2012. My bet is israel will attack iran and ww3 will follow.

( Edited 04.08.2008 09:50 by KingDom )

Bart.... said:
Schizophrenics don't have alternate personalities, they're just psychotic. Might think they;re jesus or god sometimes. I knew a guy like that once, he thougt I was allright. MY cousin sucked though.

edit Or nephew, I still dont understand the idfeercene.

Cousin = Your parent's sibling's kid. (For example your mum's sister's son.)

Newphew = Your sibling's kid. (For example you sister's son.) Not sure if I need all those apostrophes or not!

Bart.... said:
I am wondering if it's more wrong to worship the wrong deity or worshipping none at all.

I would think in the end that it wouldn't really matter as long as you generally a decent guy though.

Man did, with the help of the devil. Evil is the absence of good. Hate is the abscence of love. Therefore all this bad in the world is because of the abscence of God. I dream of the day when the whole earth will love God. That day, evil and hate and sickness will disappear from the earth.

To answer the first point I think it is entirely possible to hold two conflicting opinions. I have many. Inner turmoil?

You're using weaker terms there. It might be possible to hold somewhat conflicting opinions, suffer "inner turmoil" etc, but unless you are blindly illogical, you cannot believe that the sun is a giant ball of burning gases, and that the sun is the god ra in his chariot.

This is just obvious, I don't see why I have to keep restating it.

2. You shouldn't treat religion and science so separately. It's not like throughout history there has been a secret underground science society. There was one view and if you differed from that view you were not a scientist there was no such thing. There was one understanding of the world (or many if you count different religions) built mostly by religious scholars/scientists with no scientific contradiction. There can be no inconsistent answers to questions as yet unasked nor can there be inconsistent answers on their own with no answers to contradict.

You're waffling around the point here. I said something very simple- that science and religion often provide inconsistent answers to the same questions.

i.e. The sun is a giant ball of gases vs the Sun is the god Ra

i.e. Man evolved over billions of years vs Man was created in gods image out of dust.

These are incompatible answers, unless the religious position is modified to fit with the scientific one, in which case it isn't the same answer any more.

3. which were the best answers because they were backed up by the best science available to them and the church.

Irrelevant, I'm stating a fact to demonstrate that many people who would have been involved with or stopped blocking scientific progress didn't because they were religious. The justification for that doesn't matter, I'm not *blaming* them- only the fact that they believed the answers provided by religion rather than those granted by science/ secular philosophy is relevant to my argument.

4. no science, just religion. But yes there is galileo (apparently political crimes though) and others.

Not really sure what you're saying here. Sorry to ask you to repeat yourself.

Absolutist no? I can say a similar thing.

I'll also note that you dodged the question somewhat. I think it is patently obvious that if human beings abandonned religion at the earliest possible point and embraced all secular research and findings, science would have progressed much further.

Then there's the long section of your post that I'm guessing was there before you edited in a response to mine? SO, I won't treat that as a direct response to my post, but I'll say something:

For example (i think) socrates developed the scientific method during ancient greece and it hasn't changed much (That last sentence sums up my argument - 300BC scientific method invented in it's modern form and followed religiously)

It might be worth researching Socrates a bit more. In fact, he demonstrates my point- he was put to death for "corrupting the youth of Athens", because he didn't believe in the Athenian gods and educated contrary to them. So, that one kind of plays into my hands.

You do however list some other examples of religious people involved with science, basically doing exactly what Matt did. You then come up with this statement at the end:

Religion was science.

And the answer to that is simply: No, it wasn't. Religious people were scientists. That doesn't make their religion scientific.

And you've already somewhat undermined your point, given that for most people, being religious was the only way to get an education, so it was hardly surprising that anything approaching science was carried out by religious people.

In fact, given that practically everyone was religious, it seems a bit ridiculous to credit religion with scientific progress on the basis that religious people carried out the scientific research.

What you've done is basically the same as me saying that during Nazi Germany, Nazism was beneficial for science, because Nazi run institutions and people who were Nazi's made scientific progress.
In fact, what I've said makes more sense, because at least the Nazi's were intentionally engaging in scientific research as part of their aims. Religions don't even do that- you just have some religious people happening to do something scientific, and you then turn around and credit religion with scientific progress.

Help to science/hindrance to science? The question is a relative one and can't be resolved. I'm sure you see, however, I am not arguing that if the world wasn't superstitious we would have less progress in science.

I'll clarify my position here.

Firstly, this early development stuff- you will note that I have always said that if man abandonned religion at the "earliest possible point" science would have progressed further. By earliest possible, I don't mean the earliest that man was able to abandon religion at all.

Religion may have certain cultural benefits to a community, that might later be beneficial to scientific research. Perhaps religion was instrumental in bringing together civilization. When I say the "earliest possible point", I mean that at every stage a scientific answer was found that replaced a religious one, it should have been accepted.

I.E. Religion should have been abandonned when there was something there to replace it.

The reason this is consistent with my position is that I am saying that religion was and is an obstacle to scientific progress. I am not saying religion was, is, and always has been an obstacle.

Furthermore, all this stuff about monks and butterflies- that is fine, because it is a case of science and religion not in conflict. I never said that religion is always in every case a block on scientific progress- if a monk wants to catalog species, that is all very well and good.

My point is that religious beliefs are often incompatible with scientific beliefs, and that as such, overall, presently and at points previously, Religion is and was an obstacle to science, because it prevents the adoption of scientific answers to questions.

I believe the answer to the question "is religion an obstacle to science" can be answered by considering another:

If everyone in the world today was to convert to atheism or agnosticism, do we think that science would begin to progress faster? I certainly do.

EDIT: Wow wow wow hold up you literally posted as I was finishing this rant I will return with a cup of tea, sandwich and fag and contemplate.

Yeah it\'s kind of fascist.

The more I think about it so called \"tests of faith\" seem more like mind games to me.

Like the kind of mindgames they use on soldiers to break their spirit and turn them into killing drones.

Or panopticon style mind games based on psychology.

Or like that dude with the white coat and clipboard and you\'re supposed to turn the dial up even though the guys screaming in the other room and everyone does it anyway cos they\'re told.

Yeah...exactly like that it\'s faith whats the difference between a white coat and robe.

Like \"if god is omnipotent could he create a rock so big he could not lift it\" EDIT: totally irrelevant/ out of place sentence I just wanted to say it.

For about 6 months I was convinced there was some hidden ancient wisdom in religious texts but noooo.

Turn to stone if I look? I\'ll show you turn to stone.

Fuck it I\'ll look where I want and no god\'s going to stop me (because there isn\'t one it\'s a mind game the whole religious thing, it\'s all mind games, you can\'t win unless you lose. So lose, lose all the time)

So I look back and I don\'t get turned to stone (shock horror) but I still don\'t have faith and I\'m bad and wrong.

Or I don\'t look back and have faith but never know that if I had\'ve just bloody looked back I would\'ve realised nothing would happen.

Too late I already believed you and did it cos authority told me to.

Well fuck that.

Fuck faith. Faith is a mind game by it\'s nature it\'s the oldest trick in the book.

It means: believing in something which isn\'t true just because you can\'t prove it wrong.

I wouldn\'t turn the dial up. Everyone thinks this but I know it. I am the most antiestablishment rebellious little sod in the world. It\'s embarrassing, maybe, but I would not turn that dial up.

There\'s noone watching the prisoners and noone behind the cameras. I\'m sick of mind games I\'m going to buy a sandwich.

EDIT: FASCIST

EDIT 2: cheers

( Edited 04.08.2008 15:13 by KingDom )

It's fascist

The cheese. said:

Bart.... said:
Schizophrenics don't have alternate personalities, they're just psychotic. Might think they;re jesus or god sometimes. I knew a guy like that once, he thougt I was allright. MY cousin sucked though.

edit Or nephew, I still dont understand the idfeercene.

Cousin = Your parent's sibling's kid. (For example your mum's sister's son.)

Newphew = Your sibling's kid. (For example you sister's son.) Not sure if I need all those apostrophes or not!

Ah thanks, then I got it right the first time. So neice is the same as nephew(except for sex obviously) and you use cousin for both if it's your mother's sister's son or daughter?

Yeh, niece is a nephew minus the penis and cousins are cousins regardless of sex.

My Hair Is Telling Me :
i am a religous hindu/sikh but not that religous and i believe the evolution theory and if u said this on a religous website i might wonder what will happen

( Edited 04.08.2008 14:18 by Aza.M )

Demoni Rakkausenkeli said:
I believe however that; take for example an atheist living a good life, doing nothing but good. That should save him.

Would a christian doing bad things get saved? And if not, what's the point in christianity if you could just as well be an atheist and live a 'good' life.
Kind of defeats the purpose of becoming a christian, no?

Lots and lots of waffle here I feel. Sorry it\'s all over the place. Missed sleeping last night.

1. It is not impossible to hold inconsistent views my mum is schizophrenic and holds many completely (and I pull no punches here) mutally exclusive and ludicrously inconsistent views. You don\'t have to be crazy I often realise that things I believed were inconsistent with other things. Massive-belief-system-changing things and I\'m sure everyone does.

I\'m sure you believe many things which are completely inconsistent but do you know all of the thoughts, memories and beliefs in your head? No it\'s impossible you don\'t know 2% of it (think of memories you never knew you had. You have to remember your beliefs.)

I have to question the use of the word impossible.

Nor do any religious beliefs have to contradict science unless you take the bible literally. Even (most) religious nutjobs don\'t take the bible literally.

Whether or not it is possible to hold mutually exclusive opinion or not is a can of worms with \"philosophical semantics\" written on it and it will end with: \"well it all comes down to interpretation\".

2. I get the impression you were talking about premodern times. Modern times being already covered by: \"you can believe in science and religion as long as you don\'t take it literally\". Which VERY few people do. Creationism is not in my understanding (it exactly is but things seem different here) 6 day creationism but really the big bang could be the creation (not how I understand it but there we go).

So disregarding creationists because it\'s boring, enough fannying around:

Who the hell ever thought the sun was a ball of gases and man evolved before those concepts were even thought up?

It was not waffle it was my favourite point. How can 2 ideas be inconsistent if one has not been invented?

And if we\'re into the modern era:-

Two points: Scientific ideas are not inconsistent with religion anyway...(really important point)... and do you see suppression of science by religious/political advocacy/pressure groups? No (not really, I mean scientists:anyone who cares? scientists win. There\'s millions of them). Do we live in a theocracy? No. (so there is no top down law making religious authority) Is there censorship of science? No. Are religious people even in the majority anti-science? No. They believe in it.

But most importantly I need to repeat myself because I want to talk about premodern times: How can 2 ideas be inconsistent if one has not been invented?

To say there is no such thing as science it hasn\'t been invented is false however because what science existed was part of the religious canon.

3. I simply don\'t agree of course certain religious people have been an impediment to scientific progress but I have already admitted that so I don\'t understand you. Basically how can we possibly compare your impedimentary (word?) people with my expediatory (correct context? who knows) people. We simply don\'t know so we\'re in relatives not absolutes as I said.

You say \"rather\" than science or secular philosophy but until recently these division were not made. There was no secularism, and philosophy and science were part of the religious canon.

As far as I am concerned believing in religion then was tantamount to actively supporting science but that is a personal opinion.

I\'ll also note that you dodged the question somewhat. I think it is patently obvious that if human beings abandonned religion at the earliest possible point and embraced all secular research and findings, science would have progressed much further.

I\'m sorry I don\'t think I dodged the question I simply don\'t think it\'s something I can call. To dismiss the whole of human development. I thought my answer was that it was a bit of an absolutist and way too hypothetical a question (I hate that, so sorry).

Every now and then the world catches me and I realise how breathtaking our civilisation is. How miraculous human rights are. A lot of shit has happened. Don\'t understimate all of this it does not compare to telling galileo he was wrong.

It just doesn\'t make any sense you\'re judging it on your modern standards as if it was supposed to spring out of nowhere. How can you have scientific advance without the foundations to lay it on? This takes a long time science doesn\'t just appear with religion hanging on trying to hold it back. Religion appears and drags science along with it.

Basically (and I know this is really annoying sorry) I think the world would be completely different and I, honestly, have no idea and no bias either way it would be like flipping a coin.

I don\'t see how it\'s a valid question and that what I meant when I said you were being absolutist. I could say: surely you don\'t believe that we would have any science without the religion we\'ve had. But I can\'t really say that despite it being imo an equally valid question.

And so since we therefore need to be a little bit more relative. Of course religion has been an obstacle to science but it has also been a benefit and it\'s this that we can attempt to compare since hypothetical alternate worlds are bit much to handle.

4. My narrative was based on premodern times were there was no scientific doctrine only religios doctrine incorporating science.

It might be worth researching Socrates a bit more. In fact, he demonstrates my point- he was put to death for \"corrupting the youth of Athens\", because he didn\'t believe in the Athenian gods and educated contrary to them. So, that one kind of plays into my hands.

Socrates was a political execution. He was executed for political reasons. There was fine line between religion and politics and he was not as much a scientist as he was a political commentator. The sophists were getting out of hand and he was a scapegoat. Obviously there is a matter of interpretation here. I don\'t feel it plays into your hands though.

You comment (as I suspect I do) on few of the things I really want you to. Socrates (I\'m not going to wikipedia it so I\'m probs wrong) was funded by religion and created the scientific method. This is science. This is what turns any old information into science. Everyone even in the 100 years straight after him let alone today, used the socratic method to discover anything and lots of things have been discovered.

And the answer to that is simply: No, it wasn\'t. Religious people were scientists. That doesn\'t make their religion scientific.

And you\'ve already somewhat undermined your point, given that for most people, being religious was the only way to get an education, so it was hardly surprising that anything approaching science was carried out by religious people.

In fact, given that practically everyone was religious, it seems a bit ridiculous to credit religion with scientific progress on the basis that religious people carried out the scientific research.

What you\'ve done is basically the same as me saying that during Nazi Germany, Nazism was beneficial for science, because Nazi run institutions and people who were Nazi\'s made scientific progress.
In fact, what I\'ve said makes more sense, because at least the Nazi\'s were intentionally engaging in scientific research as part of their aims. Religions don\'t even do that- you just have some religious people happening to do something scientific, and you then turn around and credit religion with scientific progress.

I\'m sorry but that\'s all wrong.

I never said their religion was scientific although it is they used the scientific method (they knew nothing so if applying the scientific method, just as today, does not reveal every truth in the universe, then you make do. We are wrong about many things I\'m sure that in time we will see cases of this. Cases already exist in the thousands).

I mean that seeing as there was no thing called \"science\" anything which was science became part of the general wisdom and was simply made part of the religious canon. So if you wanted science you went to religion. Religion was science in that sense.

I\'m not talking about religious education for the poor and I never did (besides your reasoning is poor: education counted for shit all then they did not seek it they seeked shelter and food). I\'m talking about monks with a very different level of education.

It is not simoply that religious people carried out the research. Organized religion had a constant system of requesting, paying for, initiating and carrying out scientific studies. Multiple studies by multiple scholars in universities all over europe and the middle east and the far east. There were ancient universities studying really advanced maths, astrology, biology (for the time), medicine, zoology, physics, philosophy etc.

Yeah that\'s exactly it: the Nazis made serious advancements into science and was therefore beneficial for science. They engendered it, payed for it and did it just like religion. I\'m not a nazi (although I do love that comparison).

It is, in fact a perfect comparison. I am not religious and I don\'t agree with much of religion or what has been done in it\'s name but I cannot deny that it almost singlehandedly brought science to where it was when darwin turned up. Not bad for an obstacle to science.

Towards the end you again ask the question \"is religion an obstacle to science\" but I have acknowledged that this has been the case. I am attempting to put forward an equal opposite case but having admitted that it is only that: an equivalent case.

I cannot however take your view that we would have more scientific progress if we had no religion.

The evidence for religions positive (single handed) effect on science is good.

Any attempt to suggest that without religion science would have progressed further is as good as believing in god for me.

I cannot prove you wrong of course and you may be right but it was pretty much only religion furthering science in this world.

I mean that at every stage a scientific answer was found that replaced a religious one, it should have been accepted.

I.E. Religion should have been abandonned when there was something there to replace it.

But that\'s exactly how it happened surely? Rather than abandon religion we slowly improved our understanding until the enlightenment when science kind of took off and darwin turned up not much later.

Your last question is slightly narrower in scope and interesting. I can\'t see it having much of an effect on science. Surely the world still needs farmers and businessmen and beaurocrats etc. I\'m nor sure there is space for more scientists though I believe we have a shortage of physics and chemistry students.

I don\'t have one iota of an influence on science but I am not a scientist.

Without computers and scientists we would progress much slower but scientists need to be fed and clothed.

But in the end I think you\'re right. The third world would progress faster if it shook off some old religious stereotypes/hatreds/superstitions.

I do not feel we need to be killing every tiger in the world to make chinese medicine nor do I think national racism and oppression helps economies (although war does).

Religion is not for me the root cause. Even modern religious conflicts have socioeconomic roots just like socrates was in reality a political execution.

Basically i think organized religion is a front for political tyranny so I\'m sure there are many ways we would agree.

Personal religion (more pervasive today than in the past compared to organized religion) I don\'t feel is much of a problem.

I feel you may have misunderstood some of my points. I tend to kind of throw them around in reference to all sorts of posts, write them badly and don\'t really explain what I mean properly. Sorry if that is the case sometimes I can be more concerned with rhetoric than actually saying anything comprehensible and of use.

Cheers for the correction thats an annoying typo to make because it looks like it was intentional and any attempt to suggest it wasn\'t will only compound the situation

It\'s abandoned i think But don\'t check mine for typos they are there untill (< this word right here really fucks me off along with aswell and a few others. I feel ashamed that I can\'t decide this it seems really juvenile but I can\'t do it until...it is one l isn\'t it. isn\'t it? who knows) I\'ve had a fag and checked them.

I\'m sorry about this long post I\'m deeply ashamed I won\'t do it again.

Is most of this waffle? It all seems pretty crucial to me but I think most of it is probably waffle. Like this for example.

EDIT: sorry for double post

How about 1st cousins and cousins twice removed?

Can you do that huh, cheese?

Aza.m do you mean me and my religion bashing? because I haven\'t been like that all thread.

( Edited 04.08.2008 15:37 by KingDom )

Look, I got a little way into typing a response, but I don\'t think there is much point. I\'ve made a simple argument, and to be honest most of your responses aren\'t relevant to what I\'m saying, and you\'re making a lot of unfounded and unresearched claims. I\'m not even really clear what your position is- you seem to accept that science would progress further without superstition in several places, but then you\'re arguing against me..?

A few things:

1. It is logically impossible to hold two inconsistent beliefs. Your mother, and I hope I\'m not offending you in any way, only proves that you need to be schizophrenic to do so.

You cannot believe that the earth is round and that the earth is flat.

2. You are wrong about Socrates, he was executed for religious reasons, because he didn\'t believe in the Athenian gods. If you don\'t want to look it up, you\'ll have to take my word for it, but that\'s that.

3. You misunderstand my Nazi example. Yes, it shows that Nazi\'s were beneficial to science. But it doesn\'t show that *Nazism* is beneficial to science, does it?! In the same way, religious people have been beneficial to science, but *religion* has not been.
The fact that those people were Nazi\'s, or that those people were religious, has nothing to do with the fact that their actions benefitted science. It wasn\'t part of their religious creed to help science, it wasn\'t part of their Nazi philosophy to help science. You cannot credit an ideal or political ideology with everything its practitioners achieve simply because of their association.

The basic point I am making is very simple:

-Billions of people believe in religion.

-On some of the most important possible questions, religion is incompatible with science. I.E. Where does everything come from, how was the earth created, etc etc.

-Religious belief is also contrary to the method of scientific research. Religion is something accepted on faith, science is something that has to be proven and argued and tested.

-Religious people (not all, but some) persecute and intentionally obstruct scientists and secular philosophers to protect their position. Look at stem cell research, look at evolution, look at individuals from Socrates to Galileo.

Believing in superstition over researched evidence cannot aid scientific progress.

( Edited 04.08.2008 15:43 by GR781 )

Bart.... said:

Demoni Rakkausenkeli said:
I believe however that; take for example an atheist living a good life, doing nothing but good. That should save him.

Would a christian doing bad things get saved? And if not, what\'s the point in christianity if you could just as well be an atheist and live a \'good\' life.
Kind of defeats the purpose of becoming a christian, no?

How about 1st cousins and cousins twice removed?

Can you do that huh, cheese?

Oh, and did somebody mention Nazi\'s? Looks like Godwin\'s Law gets proved right once again.

( Edited 04.08.2008 16:56 by The cheese. )

I regurlarly realise that I have inconsistent beliefs.

Surely if you are undecided about something? Are you never undecided about something?

There is a multiplicity of divergent personalities and viewpoints in all of us.

The duality of our good side and bad side.

Our high self esteem and low self esteem

Your nonchalant self destructive element and your worried self improvement element.

I don\'t see why you find this strange.

Whether it says that in your textbook or not the fact is that even if he was executed for religious beliefs it was in reality political. I can\'t substantiate that but I\'m pretty sure it was all to do with radical political doctrines.

Wikipedia says it was the thirty tyrants as I remember correctly. It was about political maneouvering between rival city states. Primarily involving the thirty tyrants and sparta.

It does not sound all that religious from the wikipedia entry. Surely you must believe it was about money and war? You don\'t really believe it was about religion? Even if wikipedia said religion. Seriously? Fuck the textbook it was about money.

All about a god? I bet the jury didn\'t even believe in the gods.

It does show that nazism was beneficial to science. Science and arts were a huge part of the nazi goal. They started huge science programs invented nuclear fission and the V2 amonst so many things I don\'t know about rocket. Their propaganda posters were designed as high art to raise the consciousness of the german citizen. I\'m sorry but you are wrong. Eugenics? Science was huge to nazism. Science is why germany rose like it did and fought like it did. It came down to engineers and physicists. All this sounds specifially war or racism but it wasn\'t just that. Science was huge to them it was what made them into what they were after the depression. Industry. (possibly why you should trust religion more than science but hey I don\'t make the rules.)

Besides you are now contradicting yourself.

First you say that it is not religious people but religion that is an obstacle to science and then claim that nazi people and not nazism was good for science.

Well which is it? What do you require? for the institution or the people to be the agents of these actions?

I don\'t understand. My position is clear: that religion is not as much of an obstacle to science as that hateful fellow dawkins claims and you should not think of religious people as he would like (you probs don\'t so don\'t worry):

Inbred hicks with wildly conservative and anti semitic views, no education, seriously amazing mobilisation and administrative powers and some strange ability to bring down science and therefore civilisation.

But most importantly: stupid.

And organized religions are painted as these terrifyingly naive, violent, ruthless (of course they are) and again have some crazy ability to bring down civilisation.

It\'s all bullshit. Even what you\'re taught in schools and horrible history books. It\'s all bs life in the dark ages was the exactly the same without cars. It was all politics and half the population have always known the clergy was about getting money off you. You don\'t think they can tell when obvious crims and scallys come up to you to offer a blessing for money or whatever the less savoury (speudo)clergy did in the dark ages. Thay\'ve always known the church was corrupt even if they believed in it all.

Religion when the odds are weighed up can only be considered either to be a benefit to science throughout history (in my view, have your own) or at least a minor obstacle in periods of political turmoil or overall (I mean it doesn\'t even make sense) and should only be called an obstacle to science if it really actually is an obstacle right now. I see no evidence that it is so I couldn\'t give a rats arse about religion and think that the christian I know don\'t deserve such a hard time. They are on science degrees (shock horror) work incredibly hard and are very intelligent.

That said I\'m against creationism in schools and I\'m not keen on the pope and catrholism and wahhabi islam. But then for all I know given all the conflicting information about creationism it\'s sensationalist bs and they only want to teach intelligent design in philosophy or something. Which I had at AS philosophy.

Believing in superstition over researched evidence cannot aid scientific progress.

I agree. I see no way it could aid scientific progress. But you also argue that it does block scientific progress. I don\'t buy that. I don\'t see what it has to do with it.

The scientific method even when practised throughout history by christian has been an unbiased, impartial and scientific method or it is not the scientific method and is not science.

I do not see why religious beliefs would sudden remove your ability to be scientific.

Surely if the results contradicted your religion then you would have proof your religion was wrong thats all.

Of course no scientific evidence has refuted religion.

Contrary to popular belief the church did not always reject new scientific findings but encorporated them in the university curriculum or they were filed away to be looked at.

The world was not always like it is in movies nor was it always under a state of spanish inquisition or something.

Even the spanish inquisition was probably political.

Basically people should be careful what they believe. It is an ugly thing to be rude to someone on the basis of their faith. It\'s not much different from racism for me. If you saw people shouting abuse at a bunch of christians walking drunk down the street you wouldn\'t think twice but if it was racism? This is these peoples identity it\'s who they are. Their most valued possession in the whole wide world. You say it\'s a choice well it\'s not quite like deciding to have a cup of tea.

I think its bullshit that he should go round slagging off religious people like that. And that people should actively condone it and even get all worked up and excited about it like their at the fucking nuremburg rally or something and no-one bats an eyelid.

I also think that the institutionalized racism at the heart of western media (especially the press) and politics against muslims.

There is nothing wrong with religion. It is no obstacle to science as far as I can see and it\'s role in history has ben greatly exxagerated. Even if christians were all creationists it would still not be much of an obstacle.

Science is what keeps 2/3rds of us a good 4 bil alive. We would fight for it and theres more of use.

as for islam

Religion is not the greatest threat to our times. Ha. More people die from road accidents every 2 months than soldiers in the whole war. 6500 soldiers. 6500 kids die in car crashes every 2 months in the US.

Religion is not the greatest threat it\'s the same old threat: power politics.

Leave religion alone they\'re fine. Leave the smear campaign it\'s been going since the enlightenment and it\'s rude. They give to charity and stuff.

Finally religion is not incompatible with science.

Forget everything I say and if you reply only/defiantely reply to this: If you do not take the bible literally seeing as it is not how the bible is understood now or (i think) ever by the majority of christians.

Then how are religious beliefs contrary to those of science?

I think my point is simple aswell. Look at governments not religions if you want blame but persecution (because thats a more appropriate word than rude) of people based on their religion is an ugly thing.

Religion is an obstacle to very few peoples anything compared to governments and multinationals.

EDIT: Yeah don\'t use the nazi comparison it\'s bad. It always gets used because it\'s the first thing that comes to the head because it always gets used.

( Edited 04.08.2008 17:10 by KingDom )

And on the 7th day he created light. Wait...so he did all that in the dark?

You idiot get a understanding of the Bible before posting, he supposedly created light on the 4th day he rested on the seventh day, besides you nicked that joke from Ricky Gervas's Animals stand up show.

Now I grew up in a christian backround, the schools I went to I had the Bible and it's text shoved down my neck on a daily basis, I accepted all this until around age 15 at secondry school when a muslim guy in our class was thrown out the room for suggesting there is such a thing as a choice about religion, I walked out as well deciding that if there is a god he really fucked up when creating some of his followers he really must have been scraping the bottom of the gene-pool. Then I watched a documentry on an American family who were so narrow minded it was beyond belif they thought that they were god's helpers and they went round pickting funerals of dead marines saying they were going to hell alongside their family friends and the general public it shocked me to the core that if there is a God he created the most narrow minded, idiotic, in sensative fools that the rest of a America needs to endure, thus I don't think there is a god because if he created these people I would rather go to hell than become a follower what is a christian cult of homosexual haters.

On a side note when the grandfather dies I will personally fly over to America and picket his funerel.

Found those bastards on Youtube:

Bart.... said:

Demoni Rakkausenkeli said:
I believe however that; take for example an atheist living a good life, doing nothing but good. That should save him.

Would a christian doing bad things get saved? And if not, what's the point in christianity if you could just as well be an atheist and live a 'good' life.
Kind of defeats the purpose of becoming a christian, no?

Well...depends how bad a christian you are. Of course, any bad people wouldnt go to heaven, no matter what religion they believe in. But if an atheist lives a good life, he'll most likely go to heaven but im sure God will ask him why he didnt believe in him.

To answer your question, a bad christian wouldnt go to heaven. Id say he would go to purgatory, you know how Christians believe in purgatory. While a bad person with no faith, would go to hell.

Purgatory, btw, I believe is earth. That is why there are ghosts and spirits around here alot. And you cant say earth is a beautiful place to live in. Sure it is great but all this deatah and sickness make it look bad. You might not believe in ghosts but if you do and dont believe in a greater spirit, i find that pretty stupid.

In case you've not noticed, I've edited the first post. I'm currently just pooling results from the poll:

Martin_ said:
Are you:

a) Agnostic
b) Atheist
c) Humanist
d) Religious (if so, what religion)
e) Other (specify)

Do you agree with:

a) Creationism
b) Evolutionism
c) Neither

I'm to bore you all and re-post this yet again, but some of you in the topic haven't answered it. Or if you have, it's lodged within your gargantuan posts, and I've missed it. Can you please answer the poll clearly (perhaps in a simple, short post of it's own?), so I can see it? Or if you don't want to answer, state that you're declining to answer the poll. Cheers

Pointfex said:

Now I grew up in a christian backround, the schools I went to I had the Bible and it's text shoved down my neck on a daily basis, I accepted all this until around age 15 at secondry school when a muslim guy in our class was thrown out the room for suggesting there is such a thing as a choice about religion, I walked out as well deciding that if there is a god he really fucked up when creating some of his followers he really must have been scraping the bottom of the gene-pool.

Maybe that has something to with that Arc of Noah story. If I'm not mistaken Noahs grandchildren had to reproduce with each other in order to repopulate the world again, which would make it the largest incest scandal ever.

Birdo Is A Tranny said:
Atheist
Evolutionism

Thanks mate, but I\'ve already got your one. Folks, if you\'re not sure if I\'ve seen your answer- look at the opening post. I\'ve listed everyone\'s answers. To name some who haven\'t answered- The cheese, Knighty, iCame, the_cackling_idiot, and Pointflex.

Edit: I fucked up, I was looking at page 7, but thought I was looking at page 9, and thought you restated. Sorry, Birdo.

( Edited 04.08.2008 18:13 by Martin_ )

I did credit gervais with the joke in the next line didn\'t I?

Oh well, I don\'t like gervais anyway. I used to find him funny and animals is hilarious but in general I don\'t him funny anymore.

Yeah I watched some lois theroux type things on nutjobs. Some of them are way OTT. It\'s generally women though that get all hyped up.

You wonder if it\'s because the men are out lynching gays.

They are a little bit wrong in the head sometimes.

I saw this louis theroux one about this mum marketing her 14 (or something) year old twin daughters as some kind of christian band in pink tank tops with christian emblems on. The girls hated it but the mum just carried on thinking she knew better traipsing these girls round in front of crowds of catcalling drunk men (what does catcalling mean? Oh well). They got bullied aswell I think and the girls (secretly) weren\'t even that religious.

( Edited 04.08.2008 18:21 by KingDom )